![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
airiefairie posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOscars Announce New Inclusion Requirements for Best Picture Eligibility
I understand the idea behind the move, and I do believe addressing the problem of under-representation in the entertainment industry and popular culture has been long overdue - but one comment, I think, summarises my sentiment very well, and is worth noting:
"Diversity is great and something that should be strived for, even demanded, in front of the camera (unless it’s a period piece that makes no historical sense) and behind the camera, but to make it a “requirement” to even be chosen as a Best Picture is ludicrous. A movie’s quality stands on its own in the finished project. This is yet another bad move by The Academy and will result in more backlash. I sincerely appreciate the idea behind it, but this goes too far. Can you imagine applying this to sports? Some sports are dominated by white men, black men, Asian women, etc. If diversity is required to win an Olympic medal the best would not always be allowed to win?"
Indeed. When we fight discrimination with discrimination, be it positive, do we actually achieve a positive result in the long run, or is the end product rather yet another form of social injustice, which would lead to new, unforeseen forms of injustice?
Is tackling deep social problems through superficial means really a solution?
I know how much the question sounds like the slippery slope argument, but it's not like history does not abound of examples of adopting top-down discriminatory approaches to solving problems, only to create a precedent and then devolve into a culture of behavior and an entire attitude that becomes impossible to put the brakes on, at least not by voluntary, non-violent means that would not cause more turmoil, strife and disruption.
In other words, are we certain that once the ball has been sent rolling, and we start fighting injustice through imperative, almost forceful means (which these official requirements essentially are), we would then have the right to claim we are still free-thinkers? This especially applies to the world of art, where the freedom of expression is of paramount importance.
I am aware that the freedom of speech argument has been overused and overly abused by ill-meaning conservative voices to push their reactionary agenda forward, but at some point it does become relevant. So what I am asking is this. Don't these, undoubtedly well-meaning, guidelines actually do a disfavour and injustice to the very people they claim to be trying to help achieve justice? By officialising the requirement for representation, don't we eliminate the element of merit that is so fundamental in domains such as art, science, etc? Isn't this the fastest way to eliminate autonomous agency and self-confidence in entire groups, create a culture of entitlement even? And, isn't this morally degrading and deeply insulting to under-represented groups, as it essentially tells them they are fundamentally incapable of competing with the currently dominant group when put on equal footing, so the only way to level the field is by imposing official requirements? Isn't this paternalising, condescending and discriminatory in its very essence? "White saviour", as some call it?
As another comment said,
"So since I have a vagina, will I now be considered a “diversity” hire for projects that want to be considered for “Best Picture”. How incredibly insulting…"
Another said,
"Being a minority, I find these requirements so offensive – the oscars are confusing themselves with something else – it’s awards excellence. I don’t want to win an award because I checked all the boxes yet the best film did not. So it’s not enough that it’s members are diverse, you now need to do this. I’m appalled."
Yes, there IS a under-representation problem in Hollywood. Has been there for a long time. It has started being articulated in recent times. It still hasn't been properly addressed. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of work that has to be done to tackle it. The question is, does a problem as deep and complex as this truly get addressed in a meaningful way through imposing guidelines and requirements from above and making it official - or does such a measure actually make the problem worse by causing disgust and reaction even in people who, down to their core, are invested in solving the problem - such as myself?
I understand the idea behind the move, and I do believe addressing the problem of under-representation in the entertainment industry and popular culture has been long overdue - but one comment, I think, summarises my sentiment very well, and is worth noting:
"Diversity is great and something that should be strived for, even demanded, in front of the camera (unless it’s a period piece that makes no historical sense) and behind the camera, but to make it a “requirement” to even be chosen as a Best Picture is ludicrous. A movie’s quality stands on its own in the finished project. This is yet another bad move by The Academy and will result in more backlash. I sincerely appreciate the idea behind it, but this goes too far. Can you imagine applying this to sports? Some sports are dominated by white men, black men, Asian women, etc. If diversity is required to win an Olympic medal the best would not always be allowed to win?"
Indeed. When we fight discrimination with discrimination, be it positive, do we actually achieve a positive result in the long run, or is the end product rather yet another form of social injustice, which would lead to new, unforeseen forms of injustice?
Is tackling deep social problems through superficial means really a solution?
I know how much the question sounds like the slippery slope argument, but it's not like history does not abound of examples of adopting top-down discriminatory approaches to solving problems, only to create a precedent and then devolve into a culture of behavior and an entire attitude that becomes impossible to put the brakes on, at least not by voluntary, non-violent means that would not cause more turmoil, strife and disruption.
In other words, are we certain that once the ball has been sent rolling, and we start fighting injustice through imperative, almost forceful means (which these official requirements essentially are), we would then have the right to claim we are still free-thinkers? This especially applies to the world of art, where the freedom of expression is of paramount importance.
I am aware that the freedom of speech argument has been overused and overly abused by ill-meaning conservative voices to push their reactionary agenda forward, but at some point it does become relevant. So what I am asking is this. Don't these, undoubtedly well-meaning, guidelines actually do a disfavour and injustice to the very people they claim to be trying to help achieve justice? By officialising the requirement for representation, don't we eliminate the element of merit that is so fundamental in domains such as art, science, etc? Isn't this the fastest way to eliminate autonomous agency and self-confidence in entire groups, create a culture of entitlement even? And, isn't this morally degrading and deeply insulting to under-represented groups, as it essentially tells them they are fundamentally incapable of competing with the currently dominant group when put on equal footing, so the only way to level the field is by imposing official requirements? Isn't this paternalising, condescending and discriminatory in its very essence? "White saviour", as some call it?
As another comment said,
"So since I have a vagina, will I now be considered a “diversity” hire for projects that want to be considered for “Best Picture”. How incredibly insulting…"
Another said,
"Being a minority, I find these requirements so offensive – the oscars are confusing themselves with something else – it’s awards excellence. I don’t want to win an award because I checked all the boxes yet the best film did not. So it’s not enough that it’s members are diverse, you now need to do this. I’m appalled."
Yes, there IS a under-representation problem in Hollywood. Has been there for a long time. It has started being articulated in recent times. It still hasn't been properly addressed. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of work that has to be done to tackle it. The question is, does a problem as deep and complex as this truly get addressed in a meaningful way through imposing guidelines and requirements from above and making it official - or does such a measure actually make the problem worse by causing disgust and reaction even in people who, down to their core, are invested in solving the problem - such as myself?
